LexTHE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND ANR. versus C. D. GOVINDA RAO AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
t '
4 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
575
ought to be set aside the existence of this order would be
no bar to such a course, for this order of the Settlement
Officer would fall with the order of the High Court on
which it was based.
We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order
of the learned Judges as also the order of the Settlement
Officer dated August 31, 1962 which was dependent on
it, and direct the Settlement Officer to take the applications
of tl1e respondents for permission to effect the exchange
to his file and dispose of tl1em in accordance witl1 law and
in the light of the observations contained in this judgment.
'We consider it necessary to add, to avoid any misconcep-
tion, that the Act has (in 1958 and 1963) undergone radi-
cal alterations, and the Settlement Officer in dealing with
the applications according to law would have regard to
these later enactments only in so far as they apply to the
case on hand.
In the circumstances of the case we make no order as
to costs in this Court.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND ANR.
ti.
C. D. GOVINDA RAO AND ANR.
(P. B. GAJE"DRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. WANCHOO,
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuoHoLKAR, JJ.)
iVrits-(hro VVarranto, Scope of-Appointment of Reader by
Board of .Jppointments
of 1\fysore University-Constitutjon.
Art. 226-jurisdiction of High Court to interfere.
The University of Mysore,
~.<\ppellant no. 1, advertised
invi-
ting applications for 6 posts of Professors and 6 posts of Rea-
ders.
A.mong the1n were included the post of a Professor
of
English an<l of a Reader in English.
Candidates for the post of
H.eader \Vere required to possess (a) a first or high second class
1v1aster':-; Degree of an Indian University in the subject; (h)
a
Research Degree of Doctorate standard or published work of a
high standard and
( c) experience of teaching post-graduate clas-
ses for 10 years in case of Professors and 5 years in case of Rea-
ders.
Anniah Gowda, appellant no. 2, 'vas selected by a Board
of _i\ppointment which was constituted to examine the fitness of
the several applicants and he was appointed a Reader in En~lish
in the Central College, Bangalore.
-
1963
Deputy Director
of C onsolidati1Jrt,
Azamgarh
v.
Deen Bandhu
Rai.
Ayyangar, f.
1963
A~gust 25
1963
The University
of Mysore and
Anr.
v.
C. D. Govinda
Rao and
Anr.
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
C. D. Govinda P~ao, respon<lent, filed an application in the
Mysore High Court under 1\rt. 226 of the Constitution in \Vhich
he praycQ. that a writ of quo tuarranto be issued calling upon
appellant no. 2 to show cause un<lcr what authority he was
holding the post of a Reader in English.
1-Ie also prayed for a
writ of mandamus or other appropriate \Vrit or direction calling
upon appellant no. 1 to appoint hi1n Reader.
His contention was
that the appointment of 1\nniah Gowda \vas illegal in the face of
the prescribed qualifications.
The High Court set aside the appointment of ~\nniah Go\vda
on the ground that he did not satisfy the first qualification which
required "that he inust possess either a first or a high second class
Master's degree of an Indian LTni,·ersity"
as
he
had
secured
just 50.2 per cent 1narks while the minin1u1n
requi::cd
for
a •
second class 'vas 50 per cent.
As regards the secon{: and third
qualifications, the High Court did not make a finding against
~
Anniah Go\vda.
The appellants can1e to this Court by special
leave.
Held: (i) The decision o[ the I--Iigh Conrt \Vas incorrect in
as n1uch as the High Court did not take into consideration the
Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham Uni·versity obtained by
Anniah Go\vda.
It is true that Anniah Go\.vda did
not
pos-
sess a high second class degree of an Indian University but
he
did possess the alternative qualification of J\1aster of Arts of
a
foreign University.
'fhe High Court was in error in issuing
a
writ of quo rvarranto quashing the appointment of appellant no. 2.
(ii) Boards of appointments are nominated by the Universities
and when . recon1n1endations n1ade by thein and the appointments
follo\.ving on them are challenged before the (QUrts, normally,
the courts should h·-' slow to interfere with the opinions ex-
pressed by the cx1:··rts unless there arc alle_£:ations of niala-
fides against them.
.\formally, it is \vise and safe for the courts
to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more
familiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.